Letters
On the British monarchy
Your editorial "British monarchy is in trouble" has some
problems of its own. I think we will find that the adoration
of the dead princess was not orchestrated by the British
state machine. The sense of loss displayed by millions of
people is a criticism of those that wield power in the
United Kingdom. It is also a critical response to the
increasingly obvious antisocial character of the
dysfunctional royal family. This family can no longer be
promoted and hawked to the masses as worthy of emulation. It
is only possible to understand a family driving away a
divorced daughter-in-law if problems of state such as
inheritance, property rights and royal succession are
admitted. And who in all conscience would want to be a
member of such a cosa nostra?

This bourgeois public opinion forced big business to
adjust its routine functioning on the day of the funeral.
More importantly, the retreat from royal protocol that the
queen was obliged to concede; which culminated in the royal
head being bowed to the passing hearse, represents a closing
of the necessary gap between the majesty of power and the
masses. History has shown that when the gulf of mystery and
superstition is replaced by familiarity and contempt, the
institution of monarchy can no longer be assured its own
continuity.

The British monarchy is a bourgeois, not a feudal
institution. Feudal power suffered an irretrievable loss
with the head of Charles the First. The further pretense to
systemic royal prerogative ended with the flight of James
the Second to France and Ireland where he was defeated by
the Dutch William of Orange; king to be. The restoration of
the monarchy; in an alliance with the newly emergent
bourgeois class and its governing apparatus did what the
bourgeois class was not strong enough to do in its own name;
that is, sanctify the inalienable right to private ownership
and exploitation of property that had so shortly before been
held in common. It is true that vestigial feudal rights
remain in the prerogative of the Crown. It would take the
defeat of the British working class, in struggle, for these
feudal rights to reemerge in all their repressive
barbarianism.

It is only by establishing a government of workers and
working farmers in Britain that the working class will be
able to achieve the humanitarian values which they appear to
identify with Diana Spencer. It is the liberation of Ireland
that remains the key to "turning the world upside down."
Marx explained very clearly that if the British working
class could not raise itself to the task and duty of helping
to end British rule in Ireland then they themselves could
never win their freedom from the same dictatorship of
capitalist rule.

Frank Gorton

Detroit, Michigan

A few corrections
The formulation of the third paragraph in the article
"Washington pushes for domination of Caspian Sea oil" by
Megan Arney and Mámud Shrivani (Militant issue no. 30)
leaves an opening for misinterpretation. It says, "The U.S.
rulers will use their economic superiority over competing
imperialist powers and their military muscle to speed the
reestablishment of capitalist social relations in these
former Soviet republics on Washington's terms."

Written without a qualifier like "Washington will
attempt to reestablish capitalist property relations," the
paragraph is open to the interpretation that capitalist
property relations will be reestablished and the only thing
open to debate is the pace. It leaves out the question of
the resistance that will take place. This point is made
elsewhere in the article.

In addition, I believe the figure of 18,000 cubic feet
of natural gas reserves in Kazakhstan must be an inaccurate
figure. 18,000 cubic feet does not define a major gas
reserve.

Also in the article entitled UPS workers defend rights
on the job there is a misquote of UPS striker Juan C.
Campos. Referring to the scabs, the Militant quotes Campos
as saying "Every time I see one of those guys I think of
dinner being taken away from one of my kids. They are little
mice."

"Little mice" by itself doesn't express the relations on
the job between the scabs and other returning strikers, the
point Juan was making. What he told this reporter was,
"Every time I see one of those guys I think of dinner being
taken away from one of my kids. They are like little mice.
They are quiet. They cower in a corner with each other and
try to assure themselves that they did something right. But
they know they screwed up. There is no excuse for their
behavior."

Cappy Kidd

Chicago, Illinois

Editor's note: Kidd is right about the gas reserves in
Kazakhstan. The correct figure is 18,000 billion cubic feet.

Good job on UPS coverage
I thought the Militant did a first-rate job in covering
the UPS strike and the workers' victory. The on-the-scene
reports, and running analysis were invaluable. I
particularly appreciated the September 9 article by Arigiris
Malapanis in which he so skillfully used the analysis by
Wall Street economist Stephen Roach as a peg for explaining
the underlying issues in the strike. It's well worth
rereading and discussing.

I thought Malapanis made an especially useful point when
he noted that the rate of industrial profit can drop even as
the mass of profit increases. The rate and magnitude of
profit are easily and often confused.

And I liked his formulation on the average rate of
industrial profit as the "average rate of return on
industrial investment." This too is a point where confusion
slips in. That is, measuring the rate of profit by deducting
net income from gross income rather than return on
investment.

I'm sure the Militant will return to these questions.
Among other things, we can be grateful to the UPS workers
for spurring us to think more deeply about these important
issues.

Harry Ring

Los Angeles

Howard Stern on Quebec
On September 2 the syndicated radio show of Howard Stern
was carried for the first time by stations in Toronto and
Montreal.

Stern inaugurated the broadcast into Canada by
characterizing all French-speaking people as "scumbags" and
"peckerheads." He declared that "all people in Montreal
should speak English, that's that."

In a press conference following the transmission he
again attacked French language and culture and branded all
French people as Nazi collaborators. The Quebecois should
"bend over [for me] like you did for Hitler." He called
Quebec independence "ludicrous."

There was no wave of outrage over these racist, right-
wing comments. Major big-business newspapers widely
publicized the remarks without condemning them or distancing
themselves from them. In fact, they made efforts to excuse
or even promote the show.

Canada's leading capitalist daily, The Globe and Mail,
wrote a lead editorial stating that Stern was simply
"spouting all sorts of silliness against French
Canadians..the French..the French language... It's just kind
of dumb."

The Montreal Gazette stated that there were complaints
about "rabid francophobia," but called the show "thoroughly
entertaining." They carried Stern's attack on independence
as a headline.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, when asked about the
incident, responded with an evasive, "Who is this guy?"

Anyone doubting that systematic discrimination against
the Quebecois is an integral part of the Canadian capitalist
state should reflect on this recent event.

Al Cappe

Toronto, Ontario

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints
on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep
your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged.
Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used
rather than your full name.